Leading U.S. institutions support groups opposing a U.S. military
response
By Amy Ridenour
web posted September 24, 2001
Most Americans want to make the terrorists pay. A group of
Americans, connected with prestigious organizations, churches
and philanthropies, is promoting a policy that instead would
make terrorism pay off. At issue is a petition being circulated by
Foreign Policy in Focus, a joint project of the Institute for Policy
Studies and the Interhemispheric Resource Center.
The petition opposes a major U.S. military response, calling
upon the U.S. to fight terrorism by using international agencies to
apprehend terrorists and bring them to justice before
international (not U.S.) courts. It would delay increasing the
powers and budgets of our national security agencies, pending a
time- consuming investigation into how the terrorists have been
able to operate here.
And it recommends solving the terrorism problem by "addressing
the policies, circumstances and grievances that spark terrorist
responses, particularly against America." In other words, it tells
America to stop doing the things that made the terrorists kill so
many of us.
The authors of the petition are foreign policy experts, yet they
don't realize what the non-experts understand: we didn't do this
to ourselves. Jay Leno put it well: "Some people say, 'maybe we
did something.' We didn't. We got sucker punched."
Everybody wants justice, but the idea that we can stop terrorism
by promoting justice is boneheaded. Osama bin Laden's idea of
justice isn't the same as ours. Take bin Laden's apparent #1
beef: we sent soldiers to Saudi Arabia to rescue Kuwait and
protect Saudi Arabia from Saddam Hussein, whom bin Laden
didn't even like. Our soldiers didn't go there for fun. Most of
them couldn't wait to get out of the place.
Bin Laden associates with the Taliban, which punishes men who
don't wear beards, persons who educate girls over eight and
women who walk down the street without a male relative, even if
the women are covered, head to toe. That's bin Laden "justice"
for you.
No, we won't be stopping terrorism by endorsing this.
The IPS and IRC aren't new kids on the block. The IPS has
been issuing opinions (mostly, that the U.S. is nearly always
wrong, and that we shouldn't use our military) for 37 years, the
IRC, for 22 years. Their views are not mainstream. Yet they
receive support from prominent organizations: the AFL-CIO,
AFSCME, the Worldwatch Institute, Amnesty International,
Human Rights Watch, Ted Turner's Turner Foundation, the
Presbyterian Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of
America, the United Methodist Church, the Maryknoll Fathers
and Brothers, the Dominican Sisters, the John D. and Catherine
T. MacArthur Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation, the Ford
Foundation, the W.K. Kellogg Foundation and Men's
Wearhouse.
It is unlikely that all those who support the FPIF/IPS/IRC agree
with them today. Although an AFL- CIO representative sits on
the IRC board and on the FPIF Advisory Committee, and the
IPS lists the AFL-CIO and its member union AFSCME as
donors, AFL-CIO President John Sweeney swiftly offered
President Bush the union's support. Sweeney knows Bush plans
military action. AFSCME's website displays a red, white and
blue banner: "Mourn for the Dead; Fight for the Living" ­ hardly
pacifistic. AFSCME, like other AFL- CIO unions, lost members
in the terrorist attacks.
More than one member of the Air Line Pilots Association, an
AFL-CIO union, has been interviewed. None I saw called for a
peaceful response to the murderous use of their workplace.
Likewise it cannot be presumed that most Lutherans,
Presbyterians and Methodists support this petition.
The National Council of Churches, an umbrella group to which
all three denominations belong, is circulating its own petition that
does not condemn a U.S. military response, merely counseling
that America should act from motives other than anger and
vengeance.
The FPIF/IPS/IRC has a combined 64-year history opposing
U.S. military action. Those who work with them, sit on their
boards and fund them must know what they believe. It may be
that the organizations supporting the FPIF, IPS and IRC
changed their views on September 11. If so, we can expect them
to repudiate this petition.
Americans who oppose military action are entitled to their
opinion, but those who support it should withdraw from political
efforts opposing such action.
The seriousness of the issue demands clarity.
Amy Ridenour is the president of The National Center for Public
Policy Research (http://www.nationalcenter.org). (c) 2001
NCPPR.
Enter Stage Right - http://www.enterstageright.com